Sarmite BulteLiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, the stories of the victims of crimes against humanity are among the most powerful stories of the 20th century. Canadians need to hear those stories.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage report on Bill C-224 looked at a number of ways that the Government of Canada could recognize the victims of genocide and the victims of crime against humanity through education, research and remembrance.

The department is grateful to the committee for its thorough, sensitive examination of this very profound and complex issue. It made a number of recommendations which the department is currently and carefully considering.

Mr. Speaker, Umberto Marvuglia of Surrey knows that accessibility to quality health care in Canada is dubious at best.

Last year he was diagnosed as having an aneurysm and was warned that any strenuous exercise would kill him. Despite this life threatening condition, it took seven months before Umberto was operated on.

Is this the type of accessibility to quality health care the Canada Health Act is trying to protect?

Mr. Speaker, I remind the opposition member that the delivery and structuring of services come under the responsibility of the provinces and of the hospitals that are accountable to them.

However, the federal government, through Health Canada, just showed its willingness to help strengthen the health system in each and every province by providing them with an additional $21 billion in the coming years and by targeting certain investments under a very concrete action plan.

Mr. Speaker, it did not help the Canada health services to have the federal government cut as much money as it did a number of years ago.

Umberto's family members in his native Italy were so concerned about the delay in his surgery that they approached Italian doctors who said that they would have operated within seven days, not seven months. Umberto's Italian relatives are horrified that a country like Canada would have a health care system that forces someone to wait so long for life saving treatment.

I think Canadians would like to know as well if this is the type of accessibility to quality health care that the minister is trying to defend.

Mr. Speaker, for three years the government has known about plans to dump Toronto garbage into the Adams mine. Environment Canada played a role in this process from day one and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans gave it a green light in 1997.

The Liberals knew about this problem for three years, but they waited until a week before the decision had to be made to pretend to do something. The minister just figured out that 80 billion litres of toxic byproducts from Toronto garbage just might be a problem. Why did the minister do nothing for three years?

Mr. Speaker, the contradictions in the hon. member's question show how faulty the question itself is.

He has pointed out that we were there at the beginning providing information to the Ontario government, which has the primary responsibility for a landfill site of this type. He has pointed out that we were right there providing that information.

Later in the process, when concerns were raised about transboundary pollution getting into the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario and getting into an Indian reserve from lands outside the Indian reserve, in accordance with I believe sections 46 and 48 of the act we followed the normal procedure set down by the legislation. That process is continuing.

Mr. Speaker, let us review what the government has not done. It has sat on its duff for years and only now on the eve of an election has it begun even to think of doing something.

People in the Adams mine area do not want this project and that includes the Timiskaming first nation. Mike Harris is free to pollute Ontario and Quebec, and this minister sits and watches the clock click down, abandoning clean water to Mike Harris.

Why does the minister not protect the drinking water of Ontario and Quebec? Why did he gut our laws to the point that he cannot act?

Mr. Speaker, the member's question follows the same faulty assumptions that preceded his questions with respect to Walkerton.

The fact is the primary responsibility in this situation for the issue of a municipal dumpsite is provincial and municipal as well. That is the Canadian constitution. There are certain federal aspects. We provided technical information to the province in its assessment. There are aspects which we are now considering appropriately under sections 46 and 48 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister's department have a copy of the audit prepared by the auditor general, the audit of her department scheduled to be presented to the House of Commons on October 17? Does her department have a copy? Yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations among House leaders and parties on this side of the House, and all parties on this side of the House would be prepared to agree to special permission to allow that document to be tabled now in the House of Commons.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to tell the truth to the Canadian people, to stop hiding the facts, and agree to an all party agreement to let the minister table the document right now in the House?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to ask the government for and receive valuable information in the House. My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

This morning the World Conservation Union released its red list of threatened species. The list shows that 62 of the globally threatened species are found in Canada. Could the minister indicate to the House what Canada is doing to ensure that those species will be protected?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for pointing out what is a critical issue for Canada. We have in his province a large number of species at risk, including the beluga whale, wolverine, woodland caribou and many others.

The approach is threefold. We are trying to work with the provinces on the accord on species at risk to make sure we have maximum co-operation and no holes in the system, and with organizations and communities so that we can encourage, on the ground, attitudes among people who live and work out there where these species are to protect them. We have our own species at risk act which is moving through the House process.

Mr. Speaker, Christian churches have a long and honourable history in the country in spite of the actions of some employees involved in the residential schools.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Only one out of eight lawsuits has named the church as a co-defendent. Now the government has initiated countersuits naming the churches in the remaining seven out of eight, forcing many churches to face the peril of bankruptcy. Why is the government doing this?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate to discuss details of litigation before the courts in the House.

I want to confirm to the House that I have been asked on behalf of the government to undertake a new dialogue with the churches involved in the issue of residential schools. I hope to have the first meeting in this dialogue later today.

Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Development Canada is a source of endless surprises, and, daily, members of this House discover new scandals there.

Since the members of this House are unanimous in their desire to discover the outcome of the inquiry at Human Resources Development Canada, will the government agree to table this report today so that we do not go into an election without knowing the truth in this whole scandalous affair?

Mr. Speaker, it is not the government's report. It is the auditor general's report. The hon. member may well have forgotten that a law was passed not too long ago to enable the auditor general to make reports four times a year.

He can pick a date of his choice, if he wants to respond in his role as an officer of the House, to table his report on a date other than the one the hon. members have been talking about. It is open to him to do so. I think we should respect the role of the auditor general. He is an officer of the House.

Mr. Speaker, 65% of the people paying employment insurance contributions do not qualify for benefits.

We know that there are people in a black hole, seasonal workers across the country, especially in the Atlantic region.

My question to the Minister of Human Resources Development is clear. What is there in her bill to resolve these two problems—the black hole and entitlement? She should stop bragging; Atlantic Canada cannot be bought with her paltry 5%.

I am prepared to give credit to the Liberals. They understood the situation before taking office in 1993. They knew that employment insurance was an important program that was part and parcel of the social fabric of our country.

I thank him for that support. Again on December 15 the hon. member said:

We have to get rid of the intensity rule.

Today we have proposed to do just that, so I assume we still have the support of the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday at the fisheries committee departmental officials referred to phase two in implementing the Marshall decision.

Non-native fishermen were completely left out of the negotiations in the so-called phase one. Is it the minister's intention to involve non-native fishermen in the negotiations in the so-called phase two?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. Throughout the Marshall decision and our response to the Marshall decision we have worked with the commercial fishermen.

I have met with the executive itself. In fact, Mr. Thériault was assigned the job of working with the commercial fishermen to get their feedback to make sure that they played an important role and that their views were taken into consideration in the Marshall response.

Further to Marshall and in terms of the long term view, we are still working on these issues. Of course their input will be very important in the final resolution.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I am told today that the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has received a paper outlining the minister's proposal for regulations that will accompany the immigration bill.

My colleagues, my constituents and I would like to know what the minister is doing to reduce the waiting period across the system.

Mr. Speaker, as I promised, I tabled a discussion paper which will lead to the development of regulations. The purpose of these are to see that Canadians and permanent residents are reunited with their families in a faster and easier way.

We will be allowing spouses and children who are legally in Canada to apply for landing from within Canada. We will also be allowing refugee families to be processed for landing as a family unit.

We believe that families are the backbones of our community. That is why we would like to see families reunited more quickly, and that is our plan.